Thus, the wealthy can purchase the meritable, using their means of exchange for the 'value' of the meritable person's skill. While they can purchase resources, their wealth itself is how they get valuable things, not itself capable of being valuable.
it alternatively means 'very helpful or important' but that definition favours both sides equally.
I again report Fauxlaw for cherrypicking sources in his vote to the extreme that he's basically ignored 90% of the sources used by Pro, in order to pick an opinionated piece Pro used.
that has nothing to do with it. I didn't know before I created my debate that ErikT would accept it. Checkmate and you are being corrupt but there is no doubt that Oromagi will always be favoured by corruption.
I genuinely was going to bring that up against him in the final Round anyway, I intentionally didn't mention it in Round 1 as I knew it could help him.
I am admitting to reporting Fauxlaw's vote, the reason is due to the sources vote, not the Arguments, though I think that the Argument is barely formed at all.
I thought the 4-3 favoured him and was worried he'd spam with alts as the voting period ends. Anyway, I thank you for revoting. What I strategized to do in this debate is argue that he's morally good for intentionally losing debates.
the coc make it so that even if the other side literally concedes, the FF overpowers it. You gave more points to the side that didn't FF, it can't possibly match the CoC's demand to always award the win to the side that didn't FF.
I don't entirely agree that Luigi is truly worse than Mario, however I do think it's wrong to call him smarter. Something that I thought as a child about the brothers is that Luigi is the book smart one while Mario is the street smart and neither is genuinely higher in IQ to the other by a significant degree.
You lied by the way. Daisy has been helpless at times and Mario helped Luigi to rescue her. I chose to let you run with your false narrative about only Peach being helpless and turned it against you. This is true strategic prowess.
Also, I won't thank you for the free wins, you accepted them to troll me and had it backfire on you. This was a win-win endeavour for us both where you got what you wanted (or thought you did) and I got what I wanted. In fact this is the first time on the site that you genuinely tried to debate, so it wasn't a free win.
Talk on PM if you want a 'thank you' but I probably won't thank you.
I successfully (if you follow the logic) disproved this resolution five times but lost 3 of the debates, tying 2, as voters were biased and didn't understand what I was saying. This taught me also how the other side masterfully abuses definitions of 'infinite' and 'series' to win the debate.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1620/0-999-1
this was my best debate of it in terms of how 'to the point' I am.
I actually don't agree with this but I don't want to help Con. I'll explain after the debate. I am playing devil's advocate here for what I think will be a free win for me.
defer to me for all your moderating decisions and I will make our team a force to be reckoned with.
you ignored my question because you fear the answer.
Are you running nihilism or solipsism? If not, I can win as Con.
I linked merriam.webster as the source but the definition was Cambridge's I will fix this error next Round.
okay but neither side of this debate clarified what 'better' means.
thank you for your vote. :)
if you have time, if this debate at all interests you etc etc then please vote. If not, do not worry obviously.
exactly, the first favours your side and the latter favours neither.
Wtf is oromagi's vote
'valuable' means 'worth a great deal of money'.
Thus, the wealthy can purchase the meritable, using their means of exchange for the 'value' of the meritable person's skill. While they can purchase resources, their wealth itself is how they get valuable things, not itself capable of being valuable.
it alternatively means 'very helpful or important' but that definition favours both sides equally.
Complete BS vote. The ending highlights how BS it is. No logic at all.
your vote is incorrect, see my vote to understand why Pro objectively won and why this debate was autowin for Pro.
for me, Crocodile won this but it all comes down to what you see as true or not. this was a clash of truisms and facts, not debated opinions.
I again report Fauxlaw for cherrypicking sources in his vote to the extreme that he's basically ignored 90% of the sources used by Pro, in order to pick an opinionated piece Pro used.
that has nothing to do with it. I didn't know before I created my debate that ErikT would accept it. Checkmate and you are being corrupt but there is no doubt that Oromagi will always be favoured by corruption.
I'll vote on this
Whether he is more likely or not, Trump winning will be a travesty.
No personal attacks were used in this debate.
you are obligated to vote in this debate.
No it isn't. Oromagi displays complete knowledge in Round 1 that it's a banned user he's debating against.
In Round 1 he posts the ban, meaning even before posting Round 1 he knew.
My debate was accepted by an alt of ErikT and you deleted it. Where's the foreknowledge there?
That isn't proof of god and I believe in god. The anseer to your question innthis debate will be
that it 0% proves god.
I have explained it before in other debates. I'll link you to them if you want.
Definitely to a degree it does matter.
'acceptation' is a word that means formal approval, not accepting of something in terms of a challenge.
no you didn't, nothing says waiving in this description.
actually erict outplayed you hard with that round-1 mirrored waiving, you never said it in the description and he had every right to.
even if you vote for me, you can't vote like that I must report it sorry.
Yet you armed me with it instead.
I genuinely was going to bring that up against him in the final Round anyway, I intentionally didn't mention it in Round 1 as I knew it could help him.
I'm in a debate on it now. Ill PM you the reply.
nmvarco mimics successful debaters, he got the beginning from my old debates (the person = side = stated position)
I am admitting to reporting Fauxlaw's vote, the reason is due to the sources vote, not the Arguments, though I think that the Argument is barely formed at all.
Adam and Eve were a metaphor. Adam was mankind and Eve was God. I will explain more if you care about my theory.
I thought the 4-3 favoured him and was worried he'd spam with alts as the voting period ends. Anyway, I thank you for revoting. What I strategized to do in this debate is argue that he's morally good for intentionally losing debates.
the coc make it so that even if the other side literally concedes, the FF overpowers it. You gave more points to the side that didn't FF, it can't possibly match the CoC's demand to always award the win to the side that didn't FF.
I posted my R1, if you wanted to read and didn't have notifications for this.
he is permanently banned, gl to you too.
edeb8.com is down, the site doesn't even exist.
I don't entirely agree that Luigi is truly worse than Mario, however I do think it's wrong to call him smarter. Something that I thought as a child about the brothers is that Luigi is the book smart one while Mario is the street smart and neither is genuinely higher in IQ to the other by a significant degree.
Pls vote if you have time.
You lied by the way. Daisy has been helpless at times and Mario helped Luigi to rescue her. I chose to let you run with your false narrative about only Peach being helpless and turned it against you. This is true strategic prowess.
same source/reference as above
Also, I won't thank you for the free wins, you accepted them to troll me and had it backfire on you. This was a win-win endeavour for us both where you got what you wanted (or thought you did) and I got what I wanted. In fact this is the first time on the site that you genuinely tried to debate, so it wasn't a free win.
Talk on PM if you want a 'thank you' but I probably won't thank you.
I successfully (if you follow the logic) disproved this resolution five times but lost 3 of the debates, tying 2, as voters were biased and didn't understand what I was saying. This taught me also how the other side masterfully abuses definitions of 'infinite' and 'series' to win the debate.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1620/0-999-1
this was my best debate of it in terms of how 'to the point' I am.
yes
I actually don't agree with this but I don't want to help Con. I'll explain after the debate. I am playing devil's advocate here for what I think will be a free win for me.
Challenge me to this if you want to truly be exposed as a liar.
I see no reason to disallow 🍍 on 🍕
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.